Stephen, King of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 5, 2019. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stephen, King of England article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
The section on the Anarchy states the Henry II entered the fray with few soldiers and was latter defeated, it then states that Stephen assisted him. This makes littles sense as it sounds as though Henry would be fighting against Stephen (and in turn support his mother) and yet Stephen assits him. Some clarification is needed. Sovereignlance ( talk) 02:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is this page "Stephen I"? There was only one. -- Zoe
"The majority of the barons of England swore to support Matilda," but in the next sentence, "Stephen's claim was supported by the majority of the barons." What gives? Did people change allegiance or were the barons giving 110%? JHCC 18:43, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It wasn't that the barons were giving 110%, the fact was that Henry I had forced them into swearing an oath to be faithful in seeing Matilda to the throne upon his death. However, upon Henry's death, Stephen moved for the throne with great speed, and managed to win the support of many of the barons due to the fact that he had more to offer them than Matilda. He was a strong male baron in Europe at the time, held extensive lands in England, and had the support of the Church. Matilda's husband was Geoffrey of Anjou, who was an Angevin and not liked by many of the lords who held lands in both Normandy and England, and who would be opposed to an Angevin king, so when Stephen was crowned, they instantly lent their support, hoping that they may benefit from his reign more so than Matilda's. However, the issue as a whole of the anarchy that ensued following his succession is much more complex than this, but I hope what I can give helps! a lot of this is subject to debate, and are covered in 'King Stephen' by RHC Davis and 'The Reign of Stephen' by K Stringer
is the statue pictured a statue of the kind in this article or is it a statue of some other king with the same of name (and if so king of where when). (when information is found the image should be placed in an approprote place on the commons and removed from commons:Commons:Really unused
That looks like a statue of King Stephen I of Hungary Missi
In the article it states, " Empress Maud, Henry's daughter, and her claim to the throne. However, Stephen of Blois, who was a grandson of William the Conqueror through his mother, Adela..."
Matilda (Maud) was also The Conqueror's grandchild through her father, so had at least an equal claim to the throne. Should her relationship to William not also be cited? One of the reasons why neither Matilda's nor Stephen's claim to the throne was ironclad was that the application of
Salic Law had not been resolved in England, and wasn't until
Mary. Both Matilda and Stephen were descended from William in the female line.
Duckecho (
Talk) 4 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)
Is it pronouced Steven or Stefan? I always wonder when I see "King Stephen". Sotakeit 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It's pronounced Étienne since he was French, but Steven for the english pronunciation. Ciriii 00:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC) and people also say that he is looking reem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.55.128 ( talk) 19:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
As the renowned canon name tag has taught most people this gendered variant as STEV-en with ph it is also liberally usable pronounced as spelled which would be also pronounce as STeF-ən I am a bearer of the spelling and had social reminders of this fact.
How on earth was Stephen any more a Norman king of England than Henry II? Both of them had a mother from the House of Normandy and a father from another northern French dynasty. I'm going to change this. john k 22:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Stephen is considered to be the last king of the Norman dynasty. Henry is considered the first king of the House of Plantagenet. RockStarSheister ( talk) 06:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The division of monarchs into dynasties can be somewhat schematic, but this is the normal division. It might be worth saying this in the article. PatGallacher ( talk) 23:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
[1] ha an image that is supposedly his personal coat of arms, a liontaur passant on a red field. Does anyone have a reliable cite to conform this? Rhialto 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I gave a precise reference for this and had a go at translating it accurately. But I'm not sure what Walter meant by idiota. Perhaps someone who has a better idea will correct my version. And rew D alby 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it true that Stephen has only recently been accepted as a King in English history? I'm sure I read that somewhere... If true, should this be mentioned in the article? -- El Pollo Diablo ( Talk) 10:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Was King Stephen's reign 1135-54 or 1135-41, 1141-54. Was Matilda Queen regnant of England in 1141? GoodDay ( talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This section, included by Andrei Iosifovich, has been proven incorrect in that there is a traceable line from Stephen to Elizabeth. Still, it's some nice info, so I'll include it here. Andrei Iosifovich ( talk) 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Through his granddaughter Maud of Boulogne, who married Henry I, Duke of Brabant, Stephen is the ancestor of English royals, but no line leads directly to the current monarch. Through a marriage of Louis d'Évreux, a descendent of the Brabant line, to the Queen of Navarre, Stephen is an ancestor of some monarchs of France and Navarre, including Marguerite of France, second wife of King Edward I of England; however, Edward's heir was already born to a previous wife. Edward and Marguerite's descendents include Joan of Kent, first Princess of Wales and mother of King Richard II of England; but Richard had no children and the throne passed to his cousin Henry IV. Henry married Joanna of Navarre, another descendent of King Stephen's, but they had no children together.
The Navarrese monarchs also became Kings of France when Henri III of Navarre became King Henry IV of France. His daughter Henrietta Marie married King Charles I of England and Scotland, and thus became ancestor to the rulers of England and Scotland from 1660 to 1714; but following the Act of Settlement 1701 the throne passed to descendents of Charles I's sister Elizabeth, and no further British monarchs can claim descent from Stephen. However, Stephen is an ancestor to the Jacobite pretenders and their successors to the present day.
This is the descent of the House of Stuart and subsequent Jacobite claimants from Stephen:
The following confuses me:
"Desperately, and in secret, the boy then asked Stephen for help. According to the Gesta Stephani, "On receiving the message, the king...hearkened to the young man..." and bestowed upon him money and other support."
"The boy" being Maud's son Henry, the future Henry II, who was fighting AGAINST Stephen. Why on earth would Stephen help him?
If I recall, he did the same with Baldwin de Redvers - after defeating and capturing him, Stephen promptly forgave him and released him, only for Baldwin to immediately take up arms against him once again. My understanding is that Stephen was chivalrous to a fault, and lacked the ruthlessness required of a king in that age. 86.21.225.156 ( talk) 21:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I have read that Matilda was able to take Normandy fairly early, and was the "Duke of Normandy". Why is she not listed as the duke? 173.137.205.77 ( talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern ( talk) 15:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
This current picture is the same as that of the page about Henry II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plinythemodern ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I've gone through and given the article a proper scrub over and general expansion; in doing so, I'll guarantee various typos and errors etc. will have crept in, and it will no doubt benefit from both copy-editing and a once-over from experts in the period. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Will get to work on this; looks great though!
Reviewer:
Lampman (
talk) 19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
External links fine, a certain number of dablinks: [2] Lampman ( talk) 19:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Cheers! - will work through these ones in a little bit. Hchc2009 ( talk) 16:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks excellent; I'm happy to promote it! If I was a bit tough, it's because I expect you'll move on to an FA nomination pretty soon. If you do, you should probably add ALT texts to the images. Also, be a bit more careful with the difference between hyphens and dashes; there are some sticklers for that on FAR (I think I got all of these while copyediting). In any case, a great article, and even more impressive since you're a relative newcomer to Wikipedia. You show a better understanding of the project than a lot of editors who have been around for years. Lampman ( talk) 19:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I have once more altered the entry relating to Henry's death, so that the correct location is depicted. Would whoever altered the original correction, please leave the present link...he did not die at Lyon!
Train guard (
talk) 09:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know for certain the names of the documents in which Mathew Paris' illustrations of Stephen appear (like maybe Chronica Majora or something else)? Maybe the names could be added to some of the image captions throughout the article. The image in the infobox doesn't have a caption, and I was about to add one, and it made me wonder if anyone knew. I wonder now though if the infobox is getting too long to add a caption; is that the reason why it doesn't currently have one?-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 08:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This image is supposedly Stephen's coat of arms, and it appears in a couple of articles. Does anyone know if these arms were historically borne by Stephen, or are they just an example of attributed arms?-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 12:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The intro refers to Henry II as "the first of the Angevin kings." This is confusing to those of us who learned of him as "the first of the Plantagenet kings." (Even the link on " Angevin" redirects to " House of Plantagenet".) Does not "Angevin" refer to the empire and "Plantagenet" to Henry's lineage? The article "House of Plantagenet" states that "Henry accumulated a vast and complex feudal holding that was later called the Angevin Empire." (Emphasis added.)
It seems to me that the intro should clarify this: Henry II was the first of the Plantagenet kings; "Angevin" refers to the empire he built.
Cheers, Rico402 ( talk) 15:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a serious issue in Wikipedia's designation in the sidebar of illegitimate children! We must clear up the appearance because the illegitimate title flows to legitimates. This problem appears here and on King Henry II and I’m sure other pages. Markbeaulieu ( talk) 17:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
All the sources agree that it was the 22nd, not the 26th. Not sure when/where 26th crept in. Besides King p. 47 and Crouch p. 37, Davis King Stephen (3rd ed) p. 16 says "Consequently the archbishop anointed Stephen king on 22 December 1135...". Chibnall The Empress Matilda p. 65 says of Stephen "ON 22 December he was anointed king.". Green Henry I p. 222 says of Stephen "On 22 December he was crowned by the archbishop of Canterbury." Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hchc2009 I was surprised to see that this has never been a TFA and read through it with a view to nominating it. It is in very good shape for a 5 year old FA, but I have a few queries, which I hope you can help with.
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. I have since familiarised myself with WP:SOVEREIGN. -- Nevé – selbert 09:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
– No need to disambiguate. -- Nevé – selbert 07:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: To "succeed someone as [something]" means that both the first and the second person fit the description - maybe not invariably, but nearly so. (Elizabeth II is the successor of George VI, but it doesn't really work to say she succeeded him *as queen*, because he was never the queen.) The way I edited it could surely be improved, but still, what I had was better than the original. TooManyFingers ( talk) 06:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not an improvement. It's managed to cram a whole bunch of folks who were born after Stephen's death into it ... folks that aren't important to his life. But yet it leaves OFF his two brothers - Theobald II, Count of Champagne and Henry of Blois. (And if you don't think Henry of Blois is important to not only Stephen's reign, but to the preceeding and suceeding ones, then read the articles and know the topic area before deciding what is important in a relationship chart). I'm not sure why this templated charts is being spammed into a bunch of articles, replacing the relatively clean and simple line chart that was here before - but for all the additional information, this new chart is actually less informative. Can we go back to the simple chart - here at at King Henry I? A lot of times, fancier isn't better. Ealdgyth ( talk) 20:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
This is extremely unclear, to me, at least, particularly given this is a Featured Article. The article claims that "Following the battle of Tinchebray in 1106, Henry confiscated the County of Mortain from his cousin William, and the Honour of Eye, a large lordship previously owned by Robert Malet. In 1113, Stephen was granted both the title and the honour, although without the lands previously held by William in England." Yet when I click on the link to Robert Malet, it states that Robert Malet had regained his land after William II's death and "It was thought that Malet had some quarrel with the king, and again lost his lands, on the basis of some statements by Orderic Vitalis, but most historians now think Orderic confused Malet with his successor, William Malet. However it appears that Robert Malet remained in the king's confidence and held his lands until his death" his death being stated as 1130. So how could Stephen have been granted the title and honour in 1113? One article or the other is wrong. I am new to reading about the history of England and was hoping Wikipedia would give me a good overview, yet this is the third article I have found in reading about this subject where information in one Wikipedia article directly contradicts that contained in another (another of which is also a Featured Article). Billy Tallent ( talk) 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: withdrawn by request of the nominator. ( non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Stephen, King of England → Stephen of Blois – This is the WP:COMMONNAME. It is used as the title in the Wikipedia infobox as well as Britannica. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Any editor is free to close this nomination as withdrawn. I can’t do it myself since I’m on mobile. Thank you, Interstellarity ( talk) 20:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Stephen, King of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 5, 2019. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stephen, King of England article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
The section on the Anarchy states the Henry II entered the fray with few soldiers and was latter defeated, it then states that Stephen assisted him. This makes littles sense as it sounds as though Henry would be fighting against Stephen (and in turn support his mother) and yet Stephen assits him. Some clarification is needed. Sovereignlance ( talk) 02:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is this page "Stephen I"? There was only one. -- Zoe
"The majority of the barons of England swore to support Matilda," but in the next sentence, "Stephen's claim was supported by the majority of the barons." What gives? Did people change allegiance or were the barons giving 110%? JHCC 18:43, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It wasn't that the barons were giving 110%, the fact was that Henry I had forced them into swearing an oath to be faithful in seeing Matilda to the throne upon his death. However, upon Henry's death, Stephen moved for the throne with great speed, and managed to win the support of many of the barons due to the fact that he had more to offer them than Matilda. He was a strong male baron in Europe at the time, held extensive lands in England, and had the support of the Church. Matilda's husband was Geoffrey of Anjou, who was an Angevin and not liked by many of the lords who held lands in both Normandy and England, and who would be opposed to an Angevin king, so when Stephen was crowned, they instantly lent their support, hoping that they may benefit from his reign more so than Matilda's. However, the issue as a whole of the anarchy that ensued following his succession is much more complex than this, but I hope what I can give helps! a lot of this is subject to debate, and are covered in 'King Stephen' by RHC Davis and 'The Reign of Stephen' by K Stringer
is the statue pictured a statue of the kind in this article or is it a statue of some other king with the same of name (and if so king of where when). (when information is found the image should be placed in an approprote place on the commons and removed from commons:Commons:Really unused
That looks like a statue of King Stephen I of Hungary Missi
In the article it states, " Empress Maud, Henry's daughter, and her claim to the throne. However, Stephen of Blois, who was a grandson of William the Conqueror through his mother, Adela..."
Matilda (Maud) was also The Conqueror's grandchild through her father, so had at least an equal claim to the throne. Should her relationship to William not also be cited? One of the reasons why neither Matilda's nor Stephen's claim to the throne was ironclad was that the application of
Salic Law had not been resolved in England, and wasn't until
Mary. Both Matilda and Stephen were descended from William in the female line.
Duckecho (
Talk) 4 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)
Is it pronouced Steven or Stefan? I always wonder when I see "King Stephen". Sotakeit 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It's pronounced Étienne since he was French, but Steven for the english pronunciation. Ciriii 00:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC) and people also say that he is looking reem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.55.128 ( talk) 19:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
As the renowned canon name tag has taught most people this gendered variant as STEV-en with ph it is also liberally usable pronounced as spelled which would be also pronounce as STeF-ən I am a bearer of the spelling and had social reminders of this fact.
How on earth was Stephen any more a Norman king of England than Henry II? Both of them had a mother from the House of Normandy and a father from another northern French dynasty. I'm going to change this. john k 22:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Stephen is considered to be the last king of the Norman dynasty. Henry is considered the first king of the House of Plantagenet. RockStarSheister ( talk) 06:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The division of monarchs into dynasties can be somewhat schematic, but this is the normal division. It might be worth saying this in the article. PatGallacher ( talk) 23:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
[1] ha an image that is supposedly his personal coat of arms, a liontaur passant on a red field. Does anyone have a reliable cite to conform this? Rhialto 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I gave a precise reference for this and had a go at translating it accurately. But I'm not sure what Walter meant by idiota. Perhaps someone who has a better idea will correct my version. And rew D alby 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it true that Stephen has only recently been accepted as a King in English history? I'm sure I read that somewhere... If true, should this be mentioned in the article? -- El Pollo Diablo ( Talk) 10:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Was King Stephen's reign 1135-54 or 1135-41, 1141-54. Was Matilda Queen regnant of England in 1141? GoodDay ( talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This section, included by Andrei Iosifovich, has been proven incorrect in that there is a traceable line from Stephen to Elizabeth. Still, it's some nice info, so I'll include it here. Andrei Iosifovich ( talk) 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Through his granddaughter Maud of Boulogne, who married Henry I, Duke of Brabant, Stephen is the ancestor of English royals, but no line leads directly to the current monarch. Through a marriage of Louis d'Évreux, a descendent of the Brabant line, to the Queen of Navarre, Stephen is an ancestor of some monarchs of France and Navarre, including Marguerite of France, second wife of King Edward I of England; however, Edward's heir was already born to a previous wife. Edward and Marguerite's descendents include Joan of Kent, first Princess of Wales and mother of King Richard II of England; but Richard had no children and the throne passed to his cousin Henry IV. Henry married Joanna of Navarre, another descendent of King Stephen's, but they had no children together.
The Navarrese monarchs also became Kings of France when Henri III of Navarre became King Henry IV of France. His daughter Henrietta Marie married King Charles I of England and Scotland, and thus became ancestor to the rulers of England and Scotland from 1660 to 1714; but following the Act of Settlement 1701 the throne passed to descendents of Charles I's sister Elizabeth, and no further British monarchs can claim descent from Stephen. However, Stephen is an ancestor to the Jacobite pretenders and their successors to the present day.
This is the descent of the House of Stuart and subsequent Jacobite claimants from Stephen:
The following confuses me:
"Desperately, and in secret, the boy then asked Stephen for help. According to the Gesta Stephani, "On receiving the message, the king...hearkened to the young man..." and bestowed upon him money and other support."
"The boy" being Maud's son Henry, the future Henry II, who was fighting AGAINST Stephen. Why on earth would Stephen help him?
If I recall, he did the same with Baldwin de Redvers - after defeating and capturing him, Stephen promptly forgave him and released him, only for Baldwin to immediately take up arms against him once again. My understanding is that Stephen was chivalrous to a fault, and lacked the ruthlessness required of a king in that age. 86.21.225.156 ( talk) 21:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I have read that Matilda was able to take Normandy fairly early, and was the "Duke of Normandy". Why is she not listed as the duke? 173.137.205.77 ( talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern ( talk) 15:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
This current picture is the same as that of the page about Henry II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plinythemodern ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I've gone through and given the article a proper scrub over and general expansion; in doing so, I'll guarantee various typos and errors etc. will have crept in, and it will no doubt benefit from both copy-editing and a once-over from experts in the period. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Will get to work on this; looks great though!
Reviewer:
Lampman (
talk) 19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
External links fine, a certain number of dablinks: [2] Lampman ( talk) 19:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Cheers! - will work through these ones in a little bit. Hchc2009 ( talk) 16:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks excellent; I'm happy to promote it! If I was a bit tough, it's because I expect you'll move on to an FA nomination pretty soon. If you do, you should probably add ALT texts to the images. Also, be a bit more careful with the difference between hyphens and dashes; there are some sticklers for that on FAR (I think I got all of these while copyediting). In any case, a great article, and even more impressive since you're a relative newcomer to Wikipedia. You show a better understanding of the project than a lot of editors who have been around for years. Lampman ( talk) 19:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I have once more altered the entry relating to Henry's death, so that the correct location is depicted. Would whoever altered the original correction, please leave the present link...he did not die at Lyon!
Train guard (
talk) 09:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know for certain the names of the documents in which Mathew Paris' illustrations of Stephen appear (like maybe Chronica Majora or something else)? Maybe the names could be added to some of the image captions throughout the article. The image in the infobox doesn't have a caption, and I was about to add one, and it made me wonder if anyone knew. I wonder now though if the infobox is getting too long to add a caption; is that the reason why it doesn't currently have one?-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 08:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This image is supposedly Stephen's coat of arms, and it appears in a couple of articles. Does anyone know if these arms were historically borne by Stephen, or are they just an example of attributed arms?-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 12:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The intro refers to Henry II as "the first of the Angevin kings." This is confusing to those of us who learned of him as "the first of the Plantagenet kings." (Even the link on " Angevin" redirects to " House of Plantagenet".) Does not "Angevin" refer to the empire and "Plantagenet" to Henry's lineage? The article "House of Plantagenet" states that "Henry accumulated a vast and complex feudal holding that was later called the Angevin Empire." (Emphasis added.)
It seems to me that the intro should clarify this: Henry II was the first of the Plantagenet kings; "Angevin" refers to the empire he built.
Cheers, Rico402 ( talk) 15:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a serious issue in Wikipedia's designation in the sidebar of illegitimate children! We must clear up the appearance because the illegitimate title flows to legitimates. This problem appears here and on King Henry II and I’m sure other pages. Markbeaulieu ( talk) 17:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
All the sources agree that it was the 22nd, not the 26th. Not sure when/where 26th crept in. Besides King p. 47 and Crouch p. 37, Davis King Stephen (3rd ed) p. 16 says "Consequently the archbishop anointed Stephen king on 22 December 1135...". Chibnall The Empress Matilda p. 65 says of Stephen "ON 22 December he was anointed king.". Green Henry I p. 222 says of Stephen "On 22 December he was crowned by the archbishop of Canterbury." Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hchc2009 I was surprised to see that this has never been a TFA and read through it with a view to nominating it. It is in very good shape for a 5 year old FA, but I have a few queries, which I hope you can help with.
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. I have since familiarised myself with WP:SOVEREIGN. -- Nevé – selbert 09:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
– No need to disambiguate. -- Nevé – selbert 07:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: To "succeed someone as [something]" means that both the first and the second person fit the description - maybe not invariably, but nearly so. (Elizabeth II is the successor of George VI, but it doesn't really work to say she succeeded him *as queen*, because he was never the queen.) The way I edited it could surely be improved, but still, what I had was better than the original. TooManyFingers ( talk) 06:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not an improvement. It's managed to cram a whole bunch of folks who were born after Stephen's death into it ... folks that aren't important to his life. But yet it leaves OFF his two brothers - Theobald II, Count of Champagne and Henry of Blois. (And if you don't think Henry of Blois is important to not only Stephen's reign, but to the preceeding and suceeding ones, then read the articles and know the topic area before deciding what is important in a relationship chart). I'm not sure why this templated charts is being spammed into a bunch of articles, replacing the relatively clean and simple line chart that was here before - but for all the additional information, this new chart is actually less informative. Can we go back to the simple chart - here at at King Henry I? A lot of times, fancier isn't better. Ealdgyth ( talk) 20:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
This is extremely unclear, to me, at least, particularly given this is a Featured Article. The article claims that "Following the battle of Tinchebray in 1106, Henry confiscated the County of Mortain from his cousin William, and the Honour of Eye, a large lordship previously owned by Robert Malet. In 1113, Stephen was granted both the title and the honour, although without the lands previously held by William in England." Yet when I click on the link to Robert Malet, it states that Robert Malet had regained his land after William II's death and "It was thought that Malet had some quarrel with the king, and again lost his lands, on the basis of some statements by Orderic Vitalis, but most historians now think Orderic confused Malet with his successor, William Malet. However it appears that Robert Malet remained in the king's confidence and held his lands until his death" his death being stated as 1130. So how could Stephen have been granted the title and honour in 1113? One article or the other is wrong. I am new to reading about the history of England and was hoping Wikipedia would give me a good overview, yet this is the third article I have found in reading about this subject where information in one Wikipedia article directly contradicts that contained in another (another of which is also a Featured Article). Billy Tallent ( talk) 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: withdrawn by request of the nominator. ( non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Stephen, King of England → Stephen of Blois – This is the WP:COMMONNAME. It is used as the title in the Wikipedia infobox as well as Britannica. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Any editor is free to close this nomination as withdrawn. I can’t do it myself since I’m on mobile. Thank you, Interstellarity ( talk) 20:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)